Monthly Archives: October 2017

Post navigation

Whites Told to Move to the Back & Let Coloured People Have Front Seats at Halifax Concert

Just imagine a concert where women or Negroes in the front rows, despite having paid for their tickets and seats, were told to get up and go to the back of the hall to create a privileged `’safe space’ for Whites.

You can just hear the squeals of indignation. A human rights commission investigation would be ordered forthwith. Every politicians of whatever stripe would be tripping over themselves to denounce the event and order the organizers banned from whatever they could ban them from. The venue would roundly denounce whoever made such a demand.

Well, near total silence and no official condemnations greeted a racist, anti-White demand from Lido Pimienta, a singer and non-White import from Colombia who regularly demands that Whites and men vacate their sets and go to the back of the hall.

A White woman refused to give up her seat and has been denounced as a racist by the Halifax Pop Explosion and banned from volunteering again. The White victim becomes the villain.

Pimienta is virulently anti-White, with exactly the anti-Canadian values former Tory candidate Kellie Leitch would like to have seen immigrants screened for. The Walrus (October 16, 2017) noted: `’Pimienta, now thirty-one, was a teen when she moved with her mother to London, Ontario, from her native Barranquilla, Colombia. She’s since been vocal about the hypocrisy of a national identity that flaunts its multiculturalism while its cultural institutions clumsily fumble at meaningful, diverse representation—that ostracizes minorities while occupying stolen Indigenous land. This particular conflict about Canadian self-definition is a personal one for Pimienta. In an interview last year, she told me that while she sometimes feels like she’s not Colombian anymore,’I know that I’m definitely not Canadian either.’”

Writer Ian Miles Cheong reports: `’A music festival in Halifax, Canada has apologized for “overt racism” following a volunteer staffer’s refusal to move to the back because she is Caucasian.

According to the National Post, performer Lido Pimienta, who won the 2017 Polaris Prize, frequently asks all white members of her audience to move to the back and give up their seats to non-white audience members. They must do so regardless of whether they pay more for their seating.

The Halifax Pop Explosion music festival is apologizing for the actions of a photographer who refused to acquiesce to Pimienta’s request during her October 19 show. Her refusal to do so was considered an “interruption” and deemed an act of “overt racism,” according to the festival’s board of directors, who are now promising to make changes to the event.

The board promises to improve “anti-oppression and anti-racism training” for their staff next year, essentially asking them to give in to the demands of people who supposedly face more oppression than they do.

Lido Pimienta (Screenshot: YouTube)

Canadian Music Festival Says Sorry For ‘Racist’ White Staffer Who Didn’t Want To Move To The Back

IAN MILE

​

“We are sorry that one of our volunteers interrupted your art, your show, and your audience by being aggressive and racist,” wrote vice-chairman Georgie Dudka on Facebook.

The festival states that the volunteer photographer and several other members of the audience reacted poorly to Pimienta’s urging for them to move to the back. Pimienta invited “brown girls to the front.” When the volunteer refused, Pimienta took it upon herself to remove her from the event.

Dudka wrote: “They have since received notification from the festival that they are no longer welcome to volunteer with us.”

“We will not accept this behaviour and neither should you,” he added. “Be responsible for your friends – talk to them and support them as they move towards unpacking their racism. People of Colour deserve safe spaces and it is your responsibility to help. It is also ours.”

According to Allie O’Manique, who tours with Pimienta and attended the show, the female photographer’s refusal to remove herself from the spot near the front prompted other audience members near her to become enraged over her insistence of staying.

“She just kept saying, ‘Move to the back,’” said O’Manique. “Finally after saying it about 10 times — and the woman refused to move — (Pimienta) said, ‘You’re cutting into my set time and you’re disrespecting these women, and I don’t have time for this.’”

An audience member who was one of the women invited to the front told National Post that she was surprised by the photographer’s refusal to move and blamed it on the crowd for believing in the concept of “reverse racism.”

“I don’t know if I would say it can be attributed to the crowd Pop Explosion gets, or more so just the sort of people that exist in Halifax and the mindsets that prevail here,” she said.’

Ian Miles Cheong is a journalist and outspoken media critic. You can reach him through social media at @stillgray on Twitter and on Facebook. (The Daily Caller, October 30, 2017)

HATE OR DEBATE

Throughout Europe, especially Britain, so-called hate laws are passed by parliaments to stifle debate on immigration. The purpose of these inhumane anti-debate laws is not to protect minorities; it is to shield treacherous political elite from scrutiny or criticism.

Mike Walsh, who was sentenced to 6 x 4 month prison sentences for publishing anti-immigration fliers, is skeptical of government censorship and repression.

“Since my imprisonment in 1979, British government’s foreign policy, in collusion with that of the United States, has slaughtered, maimed, and made homeless millions of ethnic groups. Since the cell door slammed on me the UK government has been directly and indirectly responsible for conflicts that caused the worst humanitarian crisis since World War II.

Are we really expected to believe that corrupt political elite, whose military boots crushed liberty in a score of countries in my lifetime, gives a fig about the sensitivities of an Asian shopkeeper or Jewish moneylender?”

On October 30, British dissident Jez Turner at 13.30 attends a pre-trial hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court. The charge relates to his spoken concerns about the influence wielded by a minority with a reputation for race hate incitement. It isn’t hate, it is debate.

On November 3, six young Britons, ex-servicemen and teenagers, are brought before the Old Bailey or Westminster magistrates’ court. Their alleged offence is that they belonged to National Action. This is a small organisation that mounted sporadic non-violent protests against the UK government’s immigration policy. National Action is not an illegal organisation it is a government suppressed entity; there is a difference.

The British state’s case is unconcerned with dissent; the British state encourages Asian, African and Muslim dissent. The state is concerned that Britain’s Whites wish the same rights of protest as those practiced by immigrants and refugees.

On November 20, dissident songwriter Alison Chabloz, who enjoys an international following for her satire, is summoned to a pre-trial hearing at Westminster magistrates’ court. The Joan of Arc heretic is accused of composing lyrics and singing songs of dissent.

If hate rather than debate was the issue then why aren’t the peddlers of anti-White rap, the broadcasters of ant-White racist profanities pursued for writing and ‘singing’ anti-White lyrics in the outpourings.

On February 22, 2018, Simon Sheppard, a lone dissident, is summoned before the bench. His alleged offence is that he was outspokenly critical of noisy neighbours. Had the hapless man’s noisy neighbours been White he would not be facing the magistrates. Sadly, for Simon and the concept of free speech those he complained about are non-White.

Hate or debate? Clearly, it is the governing elite, corrupt media, spineless police and state judiciary that stands accused of hate, race hates against their own kind.

On the dates above, it is not martyred heretics who face trial. In the magistrates’ dock crouches a debauched menacing state elite. The charges against this demonic Orwellian creature relate to base treachery and anti-White race hate.

“The great only appear great because we are on our knees. Let us rise.” ~ James Larkin Statue on O’Connell Street, Dublin, Ireland.

UPDATE IN ALISON CHABLOZ FREE SPEECH CASE IN THE UK: Court decision on complex legal arguments will be made next month

Firstly, a huge thank you to the 25 brave souls who turned up at yesterday’s hearing in support. Thanks also to those of you who weren’t able to be there but sent messages and donations.

It was a great boost to see familiar, friendly faces in the public gallery vastly outnumbering the opposition. Indeed, as proceedings began, we were informed of a request made by Crown key witnesses, CAA’s Gideon Falter and Stephen Silverman. Both men had originally intended to be present in the public gallery yet neither turned up. Instead, CAA minion, Anthony Orkin, was again in attendance with just a couple of others, including the man seen on the far left of the photo below:

Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism along with representatives of other Jewish organisations including Shomrim held a meeting last week in London with Labour’sHardyal Dhindsa, Derbyshire Police and Crime Commissioner, to discuss hate crime.

Perhaps the fact that Derbyshire Constabulary last week finally returned my laptop is one of the reasons why Falter and Silverman failed to turn up? Who knows? But in light of the CPS barrister’s announcement, both were highly conspicuous by their absence.

The Crown also requested that my barrister, Adrian Davies, be the first to present submissions in relation to the complex legal arguments surrounding my case. As already explained, the charges (now five) which I face concern sending or causing to be sent a grossly offensive message under the Communications Act. I won’t go into much detail here. Suffice it to say that I was brilliantly defended by Mr Davies.

After hearing both sets of submissions, Judge Zani informed the court that he would give a decision in writing after studying the points of law discussed. He also scheduled yet another preliminary hearing on November 20th when his decision will be made public. The judge also made it clear that, at this current stage of events, he would still be inclined to keep the January 10th trial date.

Judge Zani explained that the reason for still wishing a trial to go ahead would be to hear my case not only on points of law (whether sharing a URL constitutes an offence under the Act) but also on facts, namely, the content of my songs. I, for one, shall look forward to the Crown’s star witness coming to the defence of Irene Zisblatt, Elie Wiesel, Otto Frank and the already-debunked war propaganda lies of Jews being turned into bars of soap, etc., etc.

It is quite strange to consider that in the case of Judge Zani agreeing with the Defence submission and therefore ruling that I would not have committed any offence under the Act, I may nevertheless still be sent to trial. However, the judge’s decision in this matter, quite rightly, is meant to avoid further eventual hearings pending appeals. If the judge agrees with the Crown’s submission concerning points of law, then I can and will appeal.

Judge Zani then went on to discuss bail conditions. The Crown – no doubt under pressure from the usual suspects – unsuccessfully tried to impose tighter address restrictions. Mr Davies also announced our intent to sue for abuse of process following my arrest and detention earlier this month.

My arrest and subsequent charge for yet another of my songs was the result of a witness statement made by former Zionist Federation co-vice chair, Jonathan Hoffman, who – as we saw last July – has already attempted to prejudice my case on more than one occasion. As a result of Mr Hoffman’s interference, the Crown announced yesterday that he would not make a credible witness. Key evidence relating to the new charge is now solely confined to a similar statement made by Stephen Silverman aka Bedlam Jones. On this matter, I shall leave readers to make up their own minds.

For some real discussion of my case and seeing as the Mainstream is failing in its task to inform the British public of this highly newsworthy event, I shall again be a guest on tonight’s edition of Radio Aryan’s Daily Traditionalist with Matthew Heimbach and Florian Geyer. The show starts at 5 pm BST and, hopefully, the audio quality this time will enable listeners to better hear my story. Big thanks to Sven Longshanks for organising this.

A school board trustee in British Columbia made the following post on his Facebook page a day or two ago.

The media here have gone ape-shit over it. Every major Canadian news outlet is running the story over and over on television and on their websites. The problem is, at least online, people by and large are standing up for the guy and either supporting his right to free speech or defending his position in its entirety.

The MSM is not taking it well. I tried to post a comment on the CBC’s page covering the story but the comments section is now locked down and will not accept more entries.

The Marxist narrative and brainwashing campaign that is being waged on the Western world is losing its grip on many people. The West isn’t finished yet.

Jez Turner – organiser of the London Forum – has been charged with “inciting racial hatred” in connection with his speech at the “Anti-Shomrim” rally in Whitehall on 4th July 2015.

The Zionist lobby group “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” had brought a legal action to force the Crown Prosecution Service to bring charges against Mr Turner, even though the CPS had originally decided he committed no offence.

An initial hearing will be held at 1.30 pm on Monday 30th October at Westminster Magistrates Court, Marylebone.

Meanwhile another prosecution instigated by the CAA sees anti-Zionist folk singer Alison Chabloz facing charges under the Communications Act, relating to songs uploaded to YouTube. A full day’s hearing of this case will take place at the same Marylebone court on October 25th at 10 am.

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

October 19, 2017

Outline of Submission to the Ontario Legislature’s Standing Committee on General Government Regarding Bill 163. An Act to Enable the Safe Access to Abortion Services Act, 2017

The provisions of this Act are a severe restriction on freedom of speech of persons wishing to protest abortions. This Act is less about “safe access” to abortion services than it is about preventing persons who oppose abortion possibly upsetting persons working in or accessing these services. There is no constitutional or human right not to be upset.

Abortion is a controversial and vexing issue. Following the Supreme Court’s 1988 decision in R v Morgentaler, Canada, in effect, has abortion on demand. A woman may destroy her unborn child almost until its head emerges from the womb. Thus, abortion is completely legal. On the other hand, many people, whether from sincerely held religious beliefs or secular moral ethics, believe the unborn child is not a piece of extraneous protoplasm but a human life. As such, they see abortion as murder. Some wish to protest abortion in general; some gather outside abortion clinics hoping to bringing these concerns to the people involved.

Thus, we have rights in conflict. Under existing laws protesters have no right to block access to a building or to assault people entering the building. These laws should be enforced. On the other hand, anti-abortion protests should be seen as informational pickets.

A report by on picketing by Gary Catherwood of Fasken Martineau (2005) may be useful to the Committee: “ Common law tort principles apply. At common law, the Courts have very recently concluded that secondary picketing is permissible provided it is not done in a way which is otherwise tortious. The Courts have found that the right of an unrelated employer to perform business activities is less important than a union’s right to picket and communicate information about its dispute. .. Common law tort principles apply. At common law, the Courts have very recently concluded that secondary picketing is permissible provided it is not done in a way which is otherwise tortious. The Courts have found that the right of an unrelated employer to perform business activities is less important than a union’s right to picket and communicate information about its dispute.” As in a labour dispute, it is important for anti-abortion protesters to be at the site where abortions are performed, as it is for strikers to set up their informational picket at the site of the business being struck.

The safe zone of 150 metres — a football field and a half — make a mockery out of the right to effectively stage an informational picket. Anyone violating a safe zone faces a fine of $5,000 and up to six months in prison for the first offence and subsequent infractions could see fines increase to $10,000 with up to a year in prison.

For perspective on these proposed draconian punishments, for example, Section 445 (1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides a fine of up to $10,000 and or up to 18 months in prison for killing, wounding maiming or injuring animals under one’s control. Thus, peacefully supporting human life inside the 150-metre bubble zone would attract the same penalty on second conviction as taking an axe and terminating the life of one’s cat or dog.

Injuring or endangering other animals
445. (1) Every one commits an offence who, wilfully and without lawful excuse,

(a) kills, maims, wounds, poisons or injures dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose; or

(b) places poison in such a position that it may easily be consumed by dogs, birds or animals that are not cattle and are kept for a lawful purpose.

Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or to imprisonment for a term of not more than eighteen months or to both.

Section 3.1(c) of this Bill makes it a crime, inside the bubble zone, to “perform or attempt to perform an act of disapproval

concerning issues related to abortion services, by any means, including oral, written or graphic means. ” Would driving one’s car even inadvertently past an abortion clinic with a pro-life bumper sticker be an offence? This law criminalizes expression of sincerely held religious or ethical beliefs.

In our respectful submission, this legislation is excessive, severely infringes on freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and dissent and should be withdrawn or defeated.

____________________________________

The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) CAFÉ is a non-profit educational organization that was incorporated in the Province of Ontario, on April 13, 1983 CAFÉ has over 30 years of experience intervening in tribunals and court cases on issues of freedom of expression.